Tried! Mind you, I don't object to trying him, if it's got to be done to give satisfaction; and I'll be there, and chip in and help, too; but put it off till afternoon--put it off till afternoon, for I'll have my hands middling full till after the burying--"
"Why, what do you mean? Are you going to hang him any how--and try him afterward?"
"Didn't I say I was going to hang him? I never saw such people as you. What's the difference? You ask a favor, and then you ain't satisfied when you get it. Before or after's all one--you know how the trial will go.
--Mark Twain, Roughing ItBut of course you can never depend on a jury to deliver that guilty verdict. A real jury in a real court in New York (not the kangaroo job that is a Military Commission in Gitmo) found Ahmed Ghailani guilty of one count of terrorist activity--and innocent of 284 others.
Republican House Leader Mitch McConnell is outraged:
Yesterday's acquittal in a federal court ... is all the proof we need that the administration's approach to prosecuting terrorists has been deeply misguided and indeed potentially harmful as a matter of national security.
And here's another Republican a little unclear on the concept of justice--or perhaps very clear indeed:
“This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists” in federal civilian courts, said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York. “We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantanamo.”
Because, as we know, there's never any doubt about those verdicts.
17 comments:
Don't know how you can have a fair trial after 6 years of waiting + torture.
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
I don't think that what happened in New York was justice. The judge should have refused to participate in the travesty and should have ordered his immediate release. A number of others should have been arrested and charged with a series of charges - some more serious than the charge he was convicted of.
Do not be alarmed by the sudden loss of comments. We're in process of transferring from Echo to Disqus. Comments should be resuming shortly.
Test Comment.
Bush-Cheney Use of Torture Derails Ghailani Prosecution
http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/bush-cheney-use-of-torture-derails-ghailani-prosecution.html
"Because, as we know, there's never any doubt about those verdicts. "
Darn those hypocritical Republicans for lamenting a failure to find a verdict they wanted.
"Some disturbing stats:
A recent Toronto Star report looked at 3,400 investigations of police misconduct in Ontario over a 20-year period. In only 95 of those cases were criminal charges laid and only 16 officers were ever convicted. Only three of those went to jail."
:-)
What, think you scored a cheap point there, Mark?
More apples and irnages, but here, let me help. The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go. I don't like the current complaints-against-police system, because it's overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant.
Got that? "Overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant?" Good. Is the jury system equivalently "overwhelmingly stacked" against the Crown? If you think it is, prove it.
I don't know why I bother.
The Reply wasn't working for me so I'll post here.
"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go. I don't like the current complaints-against-police system, because it's overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant."
So, paraphrasing you... what you are saying is that you don't like the system because it let's the police you "knew was guilty" go.
I totally see the difference now. ;-)
Gotta watch those paraphrases.
The stats really do speak for themselves. I'd think the same of a jury system in an alternate universe that convicted more than 99.5% of those accused. Or, alternatively, acquitted more than 99.5%.
Clear now?
"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."
But weren't you the one who was outraged because a system convicted Omar Khadr that you "knew was [not] guilty"?
I'm still struggling to see a difference between you and your characterization of Republican motivations.
Both of you lament systems that don't provide outcomes you desire.
OK, I'll play poke-the-moron one more time before I get to the housework.
Changing the subject won't save you, Mark. You spoke of outcomes; now you speak of systems. You spoke of SIU stats; now it's the Gitmo kangaroos.
Try to get this through your head: there are good systems and stacked systems. I dislike the latter, and distrust their outcomes.
Why do you think the jury system, for all its flaws, is a stacked or corrupt system, as you are implying by putting it on all fours with the Gitmo kangaroo komissions and the SIU whitewash brigade? Please enlighten us.
"Why do you think the jury system, for all its flaws, is a stacked or corrupt system, as you are implying by putting it on all fours with the Gitmo kangaroo komissions and the SIU whitewash brigade?"
Why do you think the Gitmo proceedings were kangaroo commissions despite its flaws and why do you think the SIU, despite its flaws, is a whitewash brigade?
Because you don't agree with the outcome, perhaps?
Still not seeing a difference between you and the Repubs.
Perhaps if you examine your premise you'd begin to see your error.
"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."
Then you admit this:
"...the jury system, for all its flaws..."
Could "the Repubs" (whoever they are as you've lumped a large cross section of population together here) have examined the those flaws in this particular case and came to a conclusion that those flaws impeded a proper trial?
Now, if you wish to disagree with those conclusions on a point by point basis, I'd be fine with that. Isn't that what you are asking me to do for you given your continued defenses?
Enjoy your housework.
BTW, who is Mark?
[Mark, your cover's blown. Don't ask me to embarrass you further.]
Why do you think the Gitmo proceedings were kangaroo commissions despite its flaws and why do you think the SIU, despite its flaws, is a whitewash brigade?
Because you don't agree with the outcome, perhaps?
Er, no. Because of the 100% conviction rate in the first instance and the near 100% "acquittal" rate in the other.
"Despite its flaws" makes no grammatical sense in your re-write. Please re-think. Those two outfits are all flaw.
Why would the Rethugs prefer Gitmo over the ordinary jury system if they are on the same footing, as you have implied?
Do try not to tie yourself up in knots this time. Focus. Stay on topic.
Now, answer my question: why is the jury system as corrupt as the Gitmo kangaroo komissions and the SIU whitewash brigade, as you imply?
"[Mark, your cover's blown. Don't ask me to embarrass you further.]"
This is hilarious. You are making my point. You are trying to read the minds or your rivals and you are failing. I am not Mark.
You have also read the minds of tens of millions of people who identify themselves are Republicans and concluded collectively that "The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."
"Why would the Rethugs prefer Gitmo over the ordinary jury system if they are on the same footing, as you have implied?"
Simple, they (whomever "they" are), like you, think that that system has fewer flaws because it comes to the right conclusion.
I'm still not seeing a difference between you and "them".
I am not Mark.
I know better. But to the topic at hand:
"Why would the Rethugs prefer Gitmo over the ordinary jury system if they are on the same footing, as you have implied?"
Simple, they (whomever "they" are), like you, think that that system has fewer flaws because it comes to the right conclusion.
Except that I can demonstrate that the jury system with proper rules of evidence is a better system that the Gitmo kangaroo courts. Care to argue the opposite?
I'm comparing systems, not outcomes. But suspiciously skewed outcomes do indicate what sort of system we are dealing with. 100% guilty? 100% innocent? That should be enough to raise questions. Except, it would seem, in your case.
I'm still not seeing a difference between you and "them".
Then you're not paying attention.
"Except that I can demonstrate that the jury system with proper rules of evidence is a better system that the Gitmo kangaroo courts. "
No, you can offer arguments for why you believe your system is superior. And even if you successfully convinced me of this, it still doesn't address this specific case.
You need to convince me, while others (the Repubs?) argue this case failed to live up to your standards, that they are wrong.
Finally, while they are arguing against you on a point by point basis, it will strengthen my belief that your original assertion is just plain wrong.
Namely,
"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."
It would appear then appear that they are not arguing against the jury system itself.
In the meantime, please continue your conversation with yourself about the superiority of the jury system while the rest of us examine how it failed in this particular case.
The sources I quoted used the jury result to argue for returning the cases to military commissions.
Stop slipping and sliding. You know perfectly well why they wanted this. The defendant has far fewer constitutional protections before the commissions, and all sorts of tainted evidence--including evidence obtained through torture--is allowed in.
In other words, they wanted a fixed race.
A jury system is superior to that.
they are arguing against you on a point by point basis
Umm, no, they aren't.
"The sources I quoted used the jury result to argue for returning the cases to military commissions."
They do not speak for all Republicans. Just last week, Balb complained when Jay used the term "the Left" because it's too broad.
"In other words, they wanted a fixed race."
I fail to see how you come to this conclusion. Have you debated them on the individual merits of each jurisdiction and/or what constitutes appropriate procedures?
If not, why not? How do you know until you ask?
Post a Comment